There is a limit and it is meaningful. California law requires public agencies to seek the public’s opinion. Before such laws were passed, it was common for agencies to not seek or even notify the public that plans were being passed.

In this city we have the next best thing – agencies which don’t want to notify the public, agencies that don’t want to seek public input, but are required to do by law. Given that they are required to seek public opinion by law, they do the next best thing, and give a minimal period for the public to give that input. In this case they offered the public only 42 days, not enough for most neighborhood councils to even consider the matter.

You can always comment on these things at City Council and Commission hearings. However, the question is whether this will be enough? You only have a few seconds to derail a draft which has gathered momentum over months. What the period of public input guarantees is that, in the process of producing a final draft, the agency has to at least consider your opinion, even if they reject it. As with voting, it’s better to get on the record early and often.

As I said in this post:

http://www.westsidebikeside.com/labp-planning-department-misleading-people-and-on-vacation-12100/

I think Turner and Mowery are misleading when they say this. If you ever want to talk about these issues in more depth, comeby the Bikeside Salon at Bikerowave – I have it every few weeknights and we can talk these things over. Next two are 12/3 and 12/10, from 630pm to 10pm.

@Joe

I was offering credit to those people and orgs that engaged specifically on the comment deadline extension. I know you voiced your opinion on the deadline in multiple contexts so I tried to give you credit for that. I thought that CICLE had chimed in on the comment deadline, but when I went to the blog, I couldn’t find a post on it, so I assumed I was wrong. If I wasn’t I apologize. I certainly recognize that CICLE, primarily as Joe as CICLE, is doing a ton of work on the Bike Plan in general.

That was one thing that really struck me when I was trying to produce a complete list of people who had weighed in on the comment deadline – there were so many blogs that could have easily written a short post that didn’t. I found that disheartening. I mean, what has this effort bought us in terms of more time? The additional 2 months, plus Blumenfeld laid out a very deliberative process after the comment deadline ends. Before my impression was (from City Hall types) that things would move through Planning Commission very quickly . . . and now it looks like they’ll be reasonable. So we may have gotten 3 or 4 months total out of this, which seems like something people could have gotten behind more. And yet, so many didn’t. Next time I’ll be more proactive about asking people to pitch in.

I have some hunches about what made this finally happen, but nothing firm. The main thing in my opinion is that we just brought sooo much heat on it . . . and we made it clear that it would continue to be a liability in the future even though the deadline has passed.

So I contacted both Jordann Turner and Michelle Mowery, who each told me that comments were still being accepted, and they suggested that there was no such limit on the comment period. Ms. Mowery, Bicycle Project Coordinator for the LA DOT, wrote, “Until the Plan is adopted by City Council, the public will still have an opportunity for input.”

Mr. Turner, from the Planning Department and in charge of receiving comments (so he should know) said in a telephone message that there was no such limitation. I followed up with an email saying, “There was some confusion in my mind because the city’s memo identified a November 6 close date for comments. So I’ll assume that comments after that date will also be incorporated (and responded to) as the draft becomes finalized.”
I didn’t hear back.

So now I’m informed that yes, there was a limit, but yes, now it’s being lifted?

I’ll contact both Mr. Mowery and Mr. Turner and report back.

Thanks for acknowledging my contribution as an individual – though I don’t feel like my work was “behind the scenes” – it’s my intent to be up front, present, public, open, transparent. I am glad that you’ve helped to amplify some of critiques that I’ve been putting out.

Credit where credit due: I think you might also want to acknowledge the work of C.I.C.L.E. on this effort. C.I.C.L.E. pays me to crunch the numbers, write the blogs, attend meetings with the Bike Working Group and with city staff, and more. C.I.C.L.E. has covered the bike plan quite a bit on our blog and in our e-newsletters. We have submitted letters to high-level city staff voicing the alarm over the inadequacies of the current draft plan. C.I.C.L.E. has invested quite a bit of time, money, and political pressure in trying to get a bike plan that can better serve L.A.’s communities. We’re certainly not alone – but glad to play our part in a broad coalition that’s bringing pressure to bear on this. We’re happy to join forces with the Bike Writers Collective, Streetsblog, Bike Oven, Bicycle Advisory Commitee, LA County Bicycle Coalition, various Neighborhood Councils, and others to keep the pressure on!